The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:37 pm

viscount aero wrote:My claims and that citation above derive from the recent book "The Velikovsky Heresies" by Laird Scranton (which is actually a pro-Velokovsky work). Perhaps the author is incorrect :?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XidALJh3m7g

My greater point is that Velikovsky proposes a very specific billiard game, direct contact or near direct-contact, of celestial bodies that have disrupted the solar system's planetary orbital configuration in a very short time. Every celestial body involved would have to have been in the perfect position, at the most exact timing, for any of this to actually happen.

To add, if these are all recent events, why are the orbits of the planets involved today highly stable and non-eccentric?

Don't get me wrong, I think Velikovsky is a visionary as previously stated. He was on to some very important and necessary shifts in cosmology. This is why he has maintained a following almost 70 years after his Collisions book was published. I'm not rejecting him out of hand, not at all. I'm just highly skeptical of the specific billiard game aforementioned.



The planets we're discussing are electromagnets. Venus as a comet would have an electromagnetic tail stretching for millions of miles. If the planets and or comet approached each other with positive and negative poles facing each other there might have been magnetic attraction. Repulsion with ++, or --. A dance of sorts as described in Worlds in Collision.

Discussing the descriptions from legend as the work of Dr Velikovsky is missing the point. Author after author have discussed the worldwide catastrophes associated with Exodus since the event. Rockenback in 1602 had the big picture. Donnelly added details in the 1800s. It's the descriptions from the survivors that counts. Dr Velikovsky noticed the electrical nature of the events more than his predecessors. And he organised the events in an approachable way.

The dates and agents aren't important. Just the descriptions of events. When the "River of Fire" described in Worlds in Collision becomes plasma similar to the aurora a new vision is possible.

michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:47 pm

I'm not denying the electrical nature of celestial bodies. I just personally doubt the specifically timed and coincident alignments and "near-misses" that Velikovsky claims to have occurred between the planets.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby starbiter » Mon Sep 16, 2013 4:10 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star!


Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise.


I must be incredibly clear with this so that no confusion is had. The two problems I really have with V-man is his claiming that stars eject other stars, and these orbit changes happening within human history. Venus coming out of Jupiter fully formed and differentiated rock does not make any sense at all. And orbit changes within at time period as short as 100,000 years is impossible. It takes many millions of years for orbit changes.

So in short I disagree with V-man on two grounds:

1. Stars creating other stars. In GTSM a star IS a star, it does not create a different one. Electrical fissioning is ad hoc and unnecessary.

2. Orbit changes DO happen, but NOT within human history. Besides, attributing myth to explain orbit changes is unfalsifiable. How are we to falsify such hypothesis?




This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly.



michael
I Ching #49 The Image
Fire in the lake: the image of REVOLUTION
Thus the superior man
Sets the calender in order
And makes the seasons clear

www.EU-geology.com

http://www.michaelsteinbacher.com
User avatar
starbiter
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:11 am
Location: Antelope CA

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:06 pm

starbiter wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:You say the capturing idea would take billions of years? Of course. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and thats neglecting the entire other half of Earth's evolution, when it was a much larger star!


Ok then you are more like Velikovsky than you lead on to be. Worlds must be constantly in collision else solar systems would not arise.


I must be incredibly clear with this so that no confusion is had. The two problems I really have with V-man is his claiming that stars eject other stars, and these orbit changes happening within human history. Venus coming out of Jupiter fully formed and differentiated rock does not make any sense at all. And orbit changes within at time period as short as 100,000 years is impossible. It takes many millions of years for orbit changes.

So in short I disagree with V-man on two grounds:

1. Stars creating other stars. In GTSM a star IS a star, it does not create a different one. Electrical fissioning is ad hoc and unnecessary.

2. Orbit changes DO happen, but NOT within human history. Besides, attributing myth to explain orbit changes is unfalsifiable. How are we to falsify such hypothesis?




This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly.



michael


Ugh. Same argument different person. More proof of people ignoring the purpose of this thread. And the fact that I already pointed out that stelmeta CONTRADICTS many EU concepts, but does rely on plasma recombination into gas. Why must I repeat myself over and over?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:15 pm

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the title: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis.

thus there are some things that I will repeat because it doesn't seem to be sinking in:

1. GTSM contradicts Velikovsky's assertion that Jupiter ejected Venus. Thus arguing whether or not people understand Velikovsky is moot.

2. GTSM states quite clearly that Venus is the dead core of an ancient star that is probably much older than the Earth and has all but completely died as it currently does not possess a coherent magnetic field, thus formed in probably a completely different area of our galaxy than it's current orbit as well as the other stars in our system which are evolving and undergoing metamorphosis in their interiors.

3. GTSM states quite clearly that plasma recombines into gas. Thus a star that is plasma will cool and become what people call a "gas giant". This means quiet clearly and without confusion: stars (plasma) are planets (gas).

4. Lastly the gas in a gas giant will cool and combine into what are called "molecules" and form a wide range of chemical structure including but not limited to hydrocarbons, rocks, minerals, water, amino acids, etc.

The reason why we are not getting anywhere is because people assert that this is a discussion involving Velikovsky! It is not! This is a discussion involving what happens as a star cools and differentiates it's interior according to the plasma's ionization potentials.

For the purposes of this thread, Velikovsky is obsolete.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:19 pm

starbiter wrote:This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly.

michael


JeffreyW wrote:Ugh. Same argument different person. More proof of people ignoring the purpose of this thread. And the fact that I already pointed out that stelmeta CONTRADICTS many EU concepts, but does rely on plasma recombination into gas. Why must I repeat myself over and over?


Because people are hung up on Velikovsky and overlook the tenants of your theory. They instead wish to talk about the merits of Velikovsky insofar as his basis for the EU theory--overlooking the idea that you're not out to necessarily even discuss the EU theory or Velikovsky.

What I recommend, perhaps, is that you drop even mentioning Velikovsky and "fissioning" and just discuss your own concepts and structures and let others mention Velikovsky/EU first. Otherwise you will get the preaching and corrections from others who assume you are in need of EU theory education.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby nick c » Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:28 pm

To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets".
Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true.
From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373:
Writing in the context of potential catastrophes...
Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it.

highlight added
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:17 pm

About EU's plasma paradigm, I could swear I read somewhere on here a long time ago that the electric cosmos theory draws no distinction between stars and other celestial objects, as they are a continuum of the same process under different states of plasma. That is, a planet is a star, vice versa. Did I not actually hear or read this? Is this in my imagination?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby nick c » Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:26 pm

viscount aero wrote:About EU's plasma paradigm, I could swear I read somewhere on here a long time ago that the electric cosmos theory draws no distinction between stars and other celestial objects, as they are a continuum of the same process under different states of plasma. That is, a planet is a star, vice versa. Did I not actually hear or read this? Is this in my imagination?
Yes, I think that is generally the case. The EU emphasizes the same processes can occur or are occurring at different scales. Plasma processes are scalable.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:31 pm

nick c wrote:
viscount aero wrote:About EU's plasma paradigm, I could swear I read somewhere on here a long time ago that the electric cosmos theory draws no distinction between stars and other celestial objects, as they are a continuum of the same process under different states of plasma. That is, a planet is a star, vice versa. Did I not actually hear or read this? Is this in my imagination?
Yes, I think that is generally the case. The EU emphasizes the same processes can occur or are occurring at different scales. Plasma processes are scalable.


ding ding ding ! That's the one I was looking for but couldn't articulate it correctly: SCALABILITY of plasma physics in the lab :D
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:54 am

nick c wrote:
To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets".
Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true.
From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373:
Writing in the context of potential catastrophes...
Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it.

highlight added


Great. Now find all the times Velikovsky refers to them as planets.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:58 am

JeffreyW wrote:
nick c wrote:
To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets".
Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true.
From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373:
Writing in the context of potential catastrophes...
Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it.

highlight added


Great. Now find all the times Velikovsky refers to them as planets.


Better yet, for the purposes of this discovery find all the places Velikovsky refers to the Sun and ALL stars as being baby planets. That is the meat and potatoes of this argument.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:59 am

JeffreyW wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
nick c wrote:
To Velikovsky, Arp, Alfven, and every single human on the Earth that has ever lived stars are mutually exclusive of "planets".
Well with regard to Velikovsky, this is simply not true.
From Worlds In Collision (Doubleday 1950) P. 373:
Writing in the context of potential catastrophes...
Also, some dark star, like Jupiter or Saturn, may be in the path of the sun, and may be attracted to the system and cause havoc in it.

highlight added


Great. Now find all the times Velikovsky refers to them as planets.


Better yet, for the purposes of this discovery find all the places Velikovsky refers to the Sun and ALL stars as being baby planets. That is the meat and potatoes of this argument.


Even better than just saying "dark star" find where he says this: Planet formation is star evolution. If you find that doozy then I stand corrected.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:04 am

viscount aero wrote:
starbiter wrote:This post shows complete ignorance of EU concepts and the work of Dr Velikovsky. Planetary orbits are sorted out electrically, and quickly in EU. Venus was born as an incandescent comet, probably molten. It MIGHT have sprung from the brow of Zeus. There's only one mention of that in myth. When cultures from around the world agree on a certain event with similar descriptions in the same sequence the confidence level rises. When there is one mention it's considered accordingly.

michael


JeffreyW wrote:Ugh. Same argument different person. More proof of people ignoring the purpose of this thread. And the fact that I already pointed out that stelmeta CONTRADICTS many EU concepts, but does rely on plasma recombination into gas. Why must I repeat myself over and over?


Because people are hung up on Velikovsky and overlook the tenants of your theory. They instead wish to talk about the merits of Velikovsky insofar as his basis for the EU theory--overlooking the idea that you're not out to necessarily even discuss the EU theory or Velikovsky.

What I recommend, perhaps, is that you drop even mentioning Velikovsky and "fissioning" and just discuss your own concepts and structures and let others mention Velikovsky/EU first. Otherwise you will get the preaching and corrections from others who assume you are in need of EU theory education.


Assume. Yep. All you have to do I found out in these forums is talk bad about Velikovsky and disagree with this "fissioning" method for planet formation and all of a sudden you're an idiot.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:20 am

Okay back to the subject matter. We are well aware that Velikovsky did not make the discovery that stars are young planets and a planet is an ancient star.

The actual ages of stars is very difficult. (This will also disagree with EU, they believe stars are of indeterminate age). In GTSM it is proposed is:

1. Young stars are plasma. (Sun)
2. Middle aged stars are gas. (Jupiter)
3. Old stars are mostly solid/liquid structure. (Earth)
4. Dead stars do not have an appreciable magnetic field (Mercury, Venus, Moon)

But how are we to tell HOW old the dead stars really are if the establishment which radiodates these objects only keeps their dates inside of the prescribed regions. Think. What radiodating researcher would really have the nerve to publish his/her results of moon samples being ~28 billion years old? They do exist just so people on here know.
http://ccosmology.blogspot.com/2013/05/ ... hosis.html

I had to search the internet very far and wide to find them.

Plus, which "peer-reviewed" publication would allow such blasphemous results, especially if they outdate their prescribed religion of big bang? How could an object be 28 billion years old and be in a universe that's only 13.8 billion years old? Contradictions galore! I guess it is the job of "peer reviewers" to make sure everybody is in the same boat.

Can anybody else here find the actual "radiometric" dating results of moon rocks, that are real, not the peer reviewed ones that all say its between 1-4 billion years old?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1711.0206v4.pdf The Main Book on Stellar Metamorphosis, Version 4
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests